Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QMC
  3. 2025
  4. Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd - [2025] QMC 23

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd[2025] QMC 23

Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd[2025] QMC 23

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd & Ors [2025] QMC 23

PARTIES:

PROSPA NZ Limited

(Plaintiff)

v

NOVUS MODUM Limited

(First Defendant)

YUN SEONG CHOI

(Second Defendant)

MOHAMED KARA

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

M469/25

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

01/09/25

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

HEARING DATE:

On the Papers

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

1.In accordance with s 67 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010(Cth) the judgement of the District Court of New Zealand given in case CIV-2019-057-439 in the sum of $ 8139.61 be registered

CATCHWORDS:

Practice and Procedure – Foreign Judgments. Registration of New Zealand judgement under Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act (2010) (Cth)

LEGISLATION:

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act – ss 4, 67, 68

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulations

UCPR – r 595D

CASES:

ANZ Bank v Cutfield (2014) FCA 1214

Heard v Haines (2023) FCA 325

Robinson v Studorpe Limited (2013) QSC 238

Lange v De Lange [2014] FCA 158

SOLICITORS:

Plaintiff – Francom Legal

INTRODUCTION

  1. [1]
    The plaintiff secured a judgment by default against the second defendant Yun Seong Choi and the third defendant Mohamed Kara in the District Court at Pukekohe Registry in New Zealand in the sum of $32,309.44.
  1. [2]
    There remains unsatisfied, in respect of that judgment debt, the sum of $8,661.04.
  1. [3]
    Part 7 of the Trans-Tasmin Proceedings Act 2010 (Commonwealth) (TTP Act) provides for the enforcement in Australia of judgments of New Zealand courts through a system of registration. It extends to money judgments.
  1. [4]
    The Plaintiff (Judgement Creditor) as applicant seeks to register the judgment of the New Zealand District Court dated 18 January 2020 (The NZ Judgement) pursuant to s 67 of the Trans-Tasmin Proceedings Act 2010 (Commonwealth) (TTP Act)

THE APPLICANT’S MATERIAL

  1. [5]
    The applicant has filed and relies upon:
  • Application to register judgment filed 5 March 2025
  • Affidavit of Gavin Wardle filed 5 March 2025
  • District Court (New Zealand) judgment by default in case of liquidated demand dated 8 January 2020.
  1. [6]
    In respect of the applicant’s material:
  • The application is in the form prescribed under the TTP Act (Form 5)
  • Filed with the application is a hard copy (paper form) sealed judgment by default in case of liquidated demand from the District Court (NZ)
  1. [7]
    The affidavit of Mr Wardle deposes to the following:
  • The plaintiff assigned its right, title and interest in the debt and judgment to Debt Co Pty Ltd
  • Mr Wardle is a Director of Debt Co Pty Ltd and attaches a signed copy of a Notice of Assignment
  • Payments totalling $23,648.40 have been made to reduce the judgment debt
  • The amount outstanding on the judgement is $8,661.04
  • The amounts referred to in Mr Wardle’s affidavit and the amount of the judgment is in New Zealand dollars.

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 – TTP

  1. [8]
    As Logan J remarked:  

“It is mark of the closeness of relations between Australia and New Zealand and the confidence of the Australian Parliament and the integrity of the Judicial System of New Zealand that a ready regime for enforcement upon registration or particular New Zealand judgements is provided for in the Act.”[1]

  1. [9]
    The purpose of the TTP Act is set out in section 3 as being:
  1. Streamline the process for resolving civil proceedings with the Trans-Tasman element in order to reduce costs and improve efficiency
  1. Minimise existing impediments to enforcing certain NZ judgements and regulatory sanctions
  1. Implement the Trans-Tasman agreement in Australian Law.
  1. [10]
    Section 68 provides that an Australian Court must, on application under section 67 register a registerable New Zealand Judgment.
  1. [11]
    The judgment is “registerable NZ judgment” [2]
  1. [12]
    The applicant, to whom the right, title and interest in the judgment has been assigned, is an entitled person.[3]
  1. [13]
    This court has power to register a NZ judgment as, an inferior Australian Court that has power to give the relief that is in the judgment (i.e., within this courts monetary jurisdiction).[4]
  1. [14]
    The requirements for filing a NZ judgment as part of an application under s 67(1) TTP Act are that the application must be made:
  1. In the form prescribed by regulation
  1. In accordance with the requirements prescribed by the regulations
  1. Within 6 years after the day on which the judgement is given.[5]
  1. [15]
    The judgment was given on 8 August 2020 and the application for registration is therefore within six years.
  1. [16]
    The Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulations 2012 (Commonwealth) prescribe the manner of filing the application as follows:

“A sealed certified or otherwise authenticated copy of the NZ Judgment must be physically filed at the court in hard copy.

  1. i.
    With the application; or
  1. ii.
    If the application is filed by facsimile or email – within 15 working days after the application is filed.” [6]
  1. [17]
    In De Lange -v- De Lange [2014] FCA 158, Perram J found that – “ r 17(2)(b)(1) requires not only that a New Zealand judgement be field with the application -It also requires that a hard copy of the judgement be filed “ physically “ .
  1. [18]
    Both the application and a hardcopy of the NZ Judgment were physically filed (by post) with the court on 5 March 2024.
  1. [19]
    The process established under the TTP Act is essentially administrative. Upon the application being approved, a Registrar of the Court issues a certificate of registration. There is no discretion in this court not to register such a judgment.[7]

THE UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

  1. [20]
    Following the enacting of the TTP Act the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) were amended to include Part 6 Division 1 and 2.
  1. [21]
    Part 6 Division 1 applies the UCPR to the TTP Act.[8]
  1. [22]
    The key features of the TTP Act were identified and discussed in Robinson v Studorpe Limited. [9]
  1. [23]
    Part 6 Division 2 provides for starting proceedings for an order under the TTP Act.
  1. [24]
    The proceeding must be:
  • Started by application
  • The application must be supported by an affidavit that states the material facts on which the applicant relies that are necessary to give the respondent fair notice of the case to be made against the respondent at a hearing of the proceeding. [10]
  1. [25]
    The applicant here has complied with the obligations to correctly start proceedings for an order the TTP.

CONSIDERATION

  1. [26]
    As has been observed by Derrington J in Heard v Haines[11] the process established under the TTP Act is essentially administrative and if the application is compliant – “there is no discretion in the court not to register such a judgment.” The applicant has complied fully with the requirements of the UPCR, the TTP Act and the TTP Regulations noting that:
  • The proceeding is started by application and supported by an appropriate affidavit
  • The application is in the approved form (Form 5)
  • The judgment is a registerable NZ Judgment
  • The Magistrate’s Court is an inferior Australian Court that has power to give the relief that is in the judgment (that is the monetary jurisdiction)
  • The application is made within 6 years after the day on which the judgment was given
  • The application is made in accordance with regulations – the application filed by post was accompanied for filing by a hard copy of the NZ Judgment.
  1. [27]
    The applicant has satisfied all of the requirements, and the NZ Judgment ought be registered in accordance with section 67 of TTP Act.

CURRENCY FOR REGISTRATION

  1. [28]
    The NZ Judgment is in New Zealand dollars. In seeking registration Prospa NZ Limited applied, as it was entitled, under section 69(1)(b) of the TTP Act for the judgment to be registered as if it were for an equivalent amount in Australian Currency.
  1. [29]
    The application seeks:

“The applicant wants the judgment to be registered is in the currency in which judgment is to be registered.”

  1. [30]
    The calculation for the purposes of registering the NZ Judgement in Australian Currency is provided in section 69(1)(b) in these terms:

“As if it were for an equivalent amount in Australian Currency calculated in accordance with the rate of exchange on the working date (the conversation day) of the Australian Court before the working of that court in which the entitled person made the application for registration.”

  1. [31]
    Section 69(2) provides the rate of the exchange on the conversion day is determined in the manner prescribed by the regulations.
  1. [32]
    For Section 69(2) the rate of the exchange on the conversation day is the rate of exchange published for that day by Reserve Bank of Australia.[12]
  1. [33]
    The requisite calculation for which section 69(1)(b) provides was not specified or accompanied in the application for registration.
  1. [34]
    The conversion day (the working day before the day of filing for the application ) is 4 March 2025.
  1. [35]
    The Reserve Bank of Australia’s historical exchange rate data available on the RBA website shows the exchange rate from New Zealand dollars to Australian dollars on 4 March 2025 was 1.1051.
  1. [36]
    The conversion of the judgment sum sought to be registered of $8,661.04 (New Zealand dollars) converts to $8,018.31 (Australia dollars).

DISPOSITION

  1. [37]
    The applicant is entitled to registration of the NZ Judgment.[13] The equivalent amount in Australian Currency for registration calculated in accordance with the TTP Act is $8,018.31.
  1. [38]
    The applicant also seeks the judgment registration fee of $121.30.
  1. [39]
    The judgment will be registered in the sum of $8,139.61.
  1. [40]
    There will be no order as to costs.

Magistrate J N L Pinder

01/09/25

Footnotes

[1] ANZ Bank v Cutfield (2014) FCA 1214 at 3.

[2] Tran-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (TTP Act) s 66(1)(a).

[3] TTP Act – s4.

[4] TTP Act – s 67(1)(b).

[5] TTP Act s 67(5).

[6] Trans-Tasman Proceedings Regulations – regulation 17(2)(b)

[7] Heard v Haines (2023) FCA 325 at 11.

[8] Rule 595A-UPCR.

[9] (2013) QSC 238.

[10] Rule 595D (1) & (2) – UPCR.

[11] (2023) FCA 325.

[12] TTP Regulations – regulation 18.

[13] TTP Act – s 68.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Prospa NZ Ltd v Novus Modum Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2025] QMC 23

  • Court:

    QMC

  • Judge(s):

    Pinder

  • Date:

    01 Sep 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
ANZ Bank v Cutfield (2014) FCA 1214
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2014) FCA 1214
Cite 2 - (2014) FCA 1214
Heard v Haines (2023) FCA 325
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2023) FCA 325
Cite 2 - (2023) FCA 325
Cite 3 - (2023) FCA 325
Lange v De Lange [2014] FCA 158
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] FCA 158
Cite 2 - [2014] FCA 158
Robinson v Studorp Ltd[2014] 2 Qd R 225; [2013] QSC 238
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QSC 238
Cite 2 - [2013] QSC 238

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.